From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 10:22:57 EDT
Jerry, You have made my point. It is not so simple to just say "which side are you on". You give the example of Stalinists in Spain or Germany. I gave the example here of anarchists (since you mentioned anarchism). I could have used your examples. The point is the same. In the instant case of Venezuela, Michael offered some useful observations about the complexity of the 'left' of there. I sense you feel anarchism is ipso facto on the workers side of the barricades, little discussion needed. Paul ************************************************************************ RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science ********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka On Thu, 19 May 2005 glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > > I've be out of the country for two weeks and am catching up. > > Hi Paul Z, > Welcome back. > > > Jerry's remark below caught my attention: > > > > What is most important is not whether one supports Chavez. What > > > is important is that in the ongoing class conflicts in Venezuela, one > takes the side of the poor and working class against bourgeois forces > and the reaction. I.e. the critical question is: which side of the > barricades are you on? I have no fear that John H or other > autonomists (or anarchists, for that matter) will find themselves on > the wrong side of the barricades in Venezuela. Do you really think > that if there was another coup attempt or an imperialist provocation > that John would be indifferent or on the wrong side? > > In my view, this is much too simple. Take, for example, the Civil War > in Spain. Can one really reduce it to "which side are you on"? I think > not, and the formulation has a danger of dogmatism. Take the SPD and/or > KPD in early 1930s Germany, How would you answer your own question? > > Put another way, successful revolutionary politics is extremely complex > and one's subjective intentions can lead to the best or worst of > results. And, yes, I do have fears about anarchism. Was Emma Goldman > getting Berkman to shoot Frick or Czolgocz, McKinley (I live EXACTLY on > the street where McKinley was shot!), > > [and I live a few blocks away from where Emma Goldman lived in NYC] > > > a progressive political practice? not to my way of thinking. > > OK, let's take -- for example -- the Spanish Civil War. You say that you > have fears about anarchism, but the praxis of the anarchists in the CNT > and the anarcho-syndicalists in the POUM was _far more_ progressive than > that in the brigades under the leadership of the Spanish Communist Party. > The CP -- and more importantly, their leadership abroad in the person of > Stalin -- rather than forming a united front with the anarchists against > the fascist threat, sabotaged the anarchists and assassinated much of > their leadership. In so doing, they led to the military and political > defeat of the Republican cause and the ultimate victory of Franco and > the fascists. The lesson there wasn't that Marxists should fear > anarchists, > but that they should oppose Stalinism (which, btw, to put it in John's > terms was a pro-state authoritarian, bureaucratic political movement ... > in what Alam called "really existing socialism") and form united fronts > with other leftists against fascism. > > There was a similar lesson in Germany. Had the SPD and the KPD run a > single slate in the election, then Hitler would not have been elected to > power. Had the KPD and the SPD and other left organizations including > anarchists formed a united front against the Nazis, then they could have > effectively resisted the fascists and defeated them. The political line > of the KPD, which was imposed on them from above by a much higher force > within the hierarchy of the Stalin-led state, prevented this (as they > were in their "Third Period" phase). > > These policies by "Marxists" and "socialists" inflicted _far more_ harm > on the international working class than any actions which anarchists ever > took. *A lesson of history for Marxists is not that Marxists should fear > anarchists but that we should fear and distrust many individuals and > groups who call themselves "Marxist"*. At least anarchists have a > *healthy* anti-authoritarian impulse; we as Marxists need to develop our > critical and anti-authoritarian sensibilities. > > Of course, there are any number of additional historical experiences that > we can look to. > > *What are the historical experiences where the working class has been > able to claim victory in a socialist revolutionary process where before > that revolution they trusted the elected leadership of the state and > where the state then eventually dissolved as a state and was > reconstituted as a communal or council organization directed by the > popular will of the working class and the poor?* > > In solidarity, Jerry > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT